so Jan, i heard that you were for "keeping plurality voting over IRV in
Fort Collins". is that true? do you continue to feel the same way
about FPTP vs. IRV?
On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
Congress, and he can start wars. An
Thanks for worthy comments, but I disagree a bit:
We need single-member districts, for we have offices that fit,
such as mayor and governor.
We need to ban plurality. While plurality is enough on a
good day, most any election can have bad days. I will promote
Condorcet (see
I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's
dead simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you
want to, a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
party-centric, results.
Jameson
2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn
> Does "America
Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
guess a little.
I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries ar
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
> If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
> representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
> PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.
>
> However, there will always be a
thank you, Jan. well put. i would prefer to be on the same side as Rob
Ritchie and FairVote, but i just cannot abide with the IRV happy talk.
it was a mistake to bundle and sell the Hare/STV method of tabulation
along with the ranked-ballot. and, unfortunately in Burlington, both
were re
If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.
However, there will always be a need for single-winner methods, for
single-winner offices
Chris,
you're right that it is very close to MinMax(margins). Let's compare and
contrast:
In both MinMax versions a matrix M is used to determine the winner in the same
way: if the least
number in row i is greater than the least number in any other row of the matrix
M, then candidate i is
e
American PR is a coming. You must decide if you want to keep quibbling
over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of
multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
dlw
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rob Richie
Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
Subj
Mutual-Majority-Top (MMT):
3-slot. Top, Middle, Bottom (unmarked)
For any set of candidates rated above bottom by each member of the same
majority of the voters, the winner must come from that set.
The winner is the most top-rated member of that set.
If there is no such set, then the winner i
IRV has some strong links to the two-party system. That is also one key reason
why it is seems to be the most popular approach to reform in the USA.
Jameson Quinn talked about two-party dominance and two-party duopoly, and here
we have terms two-party and centre-squeeze. We have also seen terms
Forest,
I don't understand the algorithm's definition. It seems to be saying
that it's MinMax(Margins), only computing X's gross pairwise score
against Y by giving X 2 points for every ballot on which X is both
top-rated and voted strictly above Y, and otherwise giving X 1 point for
every bal
On 12/2/11 11:46 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
dlw: Deep down, I am skeptical of whether a multi-party
system improves things that much or would do so in my country.
RBJ:i am thoroughly convinced that a multi-party (and viable
independent) system improves things over the
13 matches
Mail list logo
